Inconsistences

Let’s start thinking about the sentences below:

1) The following sentence is false.
2) The sentence above is true.

If we presume that the first sentence is really true we conclude sentence (2) is false. But if (2) is false it implies (1) to be false, being a contradiction with the premise we started with.

Instead if we begin by (1) being false, so (2) is true. But again if (2) is true it implies (1) to be true. This is a contradiction.

When the reasoning has such a logic cycle that it doesn’t close it’s said to be an inconsistence.

Moebius Strip

A similar way of thinking happens when we follow a path on the surface above and we surprisely “return” to the same start-point, but on the other side, without cross any borders.

These reflections open the way for the provocation beneath:

The prediction of a particular event resulting from a present choice would change our original decision in a manner to have a different consequence, implying an inconsistent forecast.

The video that follows is very interesting and also comic:


To read more about these subjects I suggest reading the book Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas R. Hofstadter.